brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Brickipedia:Forum/Review
This forum is dedicated to the discussion about customs and review ratings and moderators. Sections which have already been closed and implemented can be seen here. What makes a Custom "Acceptable"? Having a somewhat filled in infobox, some categories and images of actual customs. * Oh yeah, forgot to say everything currently in BC:MOR should obviously be included 23:27, November 2, 2012 (UTC) :* What are we doing to make the BC:MOR page more accessible to other users. I mean are we adding links to it to Custom nomination pages and other Custom-related articles. Should we also have a link to it in the Policies template? - 12:48, November 4, 2012 (UTC) What is the criteria for a "Featured Custom"? * Must not contain any spelling errors? 23:16, November 2, 2012 (UTC) *Must use correct grammar, have the correct categories and infobox, that has been filled in as much as possible, including a link to the user who made the custom's userpage and also feature a little bit explaining what the custom is and images of actual customs and not just official minifigures with text saying what they want the custom to be. ** I'm pretty sure the only categories we have are Category:Custom Sets/Themes/Minifigures, and they're all automatically added with an infobox, so it may be best to leave that out (otherwise people will start double-categorising pages = bad). The rest sounds good to me though 23:49, November 2, 2012 (UTC) ***Oh, I thought the infoboxes only added Category:Customs. **** Well that was a bit stupid of me to not add that in. The infoboxes will now take care of those cats. 00:05, November 3, 2012 (UTC) What makes a Review "Acceptable"? * Everything currently in BR:MOR 23:27, November 2, 2012 (UTC) What is the criteria for a "Featured Review"? * Must not contain any spelling errors? 23:16, November 2, 2012 (UTC) ** I think it should just be the same as Acceptable, except that it's been voted through as a featured. Maybe no spelling errors though. 23:23, November 7, 2012 (UTC) Comments * Honestly, I really don't know :S 23:16, November 2, 2012 (UTC) * Added UR, AR, UC and AC ratings to , which can now be used. Note to RQM members- rating templates must be placed inside noinclude tags with the semantic stuff. Thanks. 22:10, November 21, 2012 (UTC) :* Could we get a bot to add to all reviews and customs pages? 20:47, November 22, 2012 (UTC) ::* If this is to be done, it must be added inside tags for reviews though please, otherwise bad things would happen. (sorry if I'm going on too much about this) 22:17, November 22, 2012 (UTC) * I added to one of my customs. The category "acceptable customs" appeared, but the template at the top of the page didn't. :S 22:20, November 22, 2012 (UTC) ** Would you mind trying again? Everything seems to be working fine in the tests I've done. I know on Monobook, ratings sometimes just don't show up occasionally, then you reload the page and everything's fine :S 22:41, November 22, 2012 (UTC) *** Wait, AC, I was thinking AR, sorry. Taking a look at it now 22:42, November 22, 2012 (UTC) **** Should be fixed 22:43, November 22, 2012 (UTC) ***** Yeah, it's good now. Thanks :) 22:45, November 22, 2012 (UTC) I think we should have three customs and reviews ratings. Acceptable, Good and Featured. I say this because some acceptable customs are at a higher level than others regarding the content. While some just have an infobox, lead section, images and a "promotional background", others have a all of the above and a minifigure gallery and a detailed description. Just an idea. 22:49, November 22, 2012 (UTC) *Either that or raise the AC standards, I would say. 22:49, November 22, 2012 (UTC) *For example: Custom:Mon-Optical Robot and Custom:Defense Post Assault are both acceptable, but the latter is clearly much higher quality of an article. 22:54, November 22, 2012 (UTC) ** Yeah, I think that was suggested up above- I'll set up a vote for what to use 23:06, November 22, 2012 (UTC) * Category:Unrated Reviews and Category:Unrated Customs created. These cats will appear when is used for reviews or customs (same unrated icon will appear though) 23:11, November 22, 2012 (UTC) ** Looks good. A bot owner could get those all up. 23:24, November 22, 2012 (UTC) Ratings Use Unacceptable, Acceptable, Good, Featured #As he who suggested it. 23:10, November 22, 2012 (UTC) # Yes, at some point, I've now voted for every possible alternative here :P My mind's been changed by this review (and sorry for singling it out). I believe that it may be rated as "unacceptable", however, while it is very short, I think is still worthy of being here. It offers a thought out opinion of the set, discusses some of the features, and uses good spelling/grammar. Therefore, I propose that reviews like this (relatively short, but still well structured and well presented) should be acceptable (or maybe some sort of nicer name?), and what we are currently considering as acceptable to be good. Please note, this is only a vote for good for reviews, customs I still think is sort of up to the individual on how they feel about a custom, so I still support having no "good" rating for there. 23:44, December 27, 2012 (UTC) #:I would support for reviews only. I was mostly thinking about customs when I typed what I said below. 23:52, December 27, 2012 (UTC) Use Unacceptable, Acceptable, Featured # Though I do like it when custom articles have superlative information, I don't see the need for another denomination of articles. Now, if it was the quality of the custom, I'd understand, but that is not what I got out of it above. People who see that rating will most likely think that it is referring to the quality of the custom. Things like this would be rated "good", while things like this would only be "acceptable". Actually, for that reason I'm not so happy using "acceptable" either, but I can't think of a word that would refer to the article's quality rather than the custom's, and I doubt that there is one that exists. 01:28, November 23, 2012 (UTC) # Per Berrybrick. Customs and reviews are different from articles; they are 'owned'. I think that people should be able to write what they want and not have to worry about whether it's going to be 'good' or not. 17:53, November 30, 2012 (UTC) #:# Actually, on reflection I think it may be easier to leave it as this. If a review/custom is "good", it can easily go to featured. Weak support for system with no good. 04:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC) # I'd been meaning to do this after Jag voted, as he convinced me, but I kept forgetting to. So...per Jag. :P 06:56, December 26, 2012 (UTC) Comments * Can't say I'm too bothered either way :) Things that will need to be discussed though if good is chosen- ** What makes an article "good"? ** How will "good" be decided (assigned by C/RQM or through a vote like FC/R? : 23:06, November 22, 2012 (UTC) * How does this sound? ** An acceptable custom could be anywhere from this level to this. An infobox, a lead section and at least one image must be included as the minimum. ** Good customs could look somewhat like this, with an infobox, a lead section that tells who and when it was made, a detailed description, an optional background/promotional background and optional notes, gallery and external links sections. ** Featured customs are just "good" customs that have awesome designs that people like. :P 23:22, November 22, 2012 (UTC) CQM pages I just got around to making the request page and I noticed we need a new template for the "Custom Classes" also we need redlinks made. 22:12, November 29, 2012 (UTC) :I don't think we're ready to form a member requests page yet. We still need a name and a template. We're also debating the various classes - how many there should be and such. 22:16, November 29, 2012 (UTC) Finishing Voting for names 22:12, December 30, 2012 (UTC) Alpha Team and Galaxy Squad # 18:18, December 30, 2012 (UTC) # We already have the Crown Knights. :P Let's focus on other themes. # Different theme for each section would be better. -- 23:42, December 30, 2012 (UTC) Dragon Knights and Shadow Knights # 20:18, December 30, 2012 (UTC) # 20:26, December 30, 2012 (UTC) # 20:29, December 30, 2012 (UTC) # #* Knight, it's not like you do much work in forums - so why can you be voting? Sorry, it is just that I don't think a user who doesn't do much forum work should vote for a major thing. -- 23:43, December 30, 2012 (UTC) #** I only do stuff in the forums if I think it's important, and I think this is important. #** Your reasoning, Czech, baffles me. You're saying he shouldn't be voting in the forums because he doesn't often do so? And would you be saying the same thing if he'd voted in the Galaxy Squad section? 00:25, December 31, 2012 (UTC) #*** Honestly, yes. I just think that you should vote on something like this when you don't do much forum stuff. #**** So how would you expect someone who doesn't often vote to vote regularly if they aren't supposed to vote? 00:57, December 31, 2012 (UTC) # -If I can vote #: Anyone can vote (if they're a registered user) 00:36, December 31, 2012 (UTC) }}